Linux Hater's Blog - Latest Comments in My browser needs 16 exabytes

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

abercrombie Outlet — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:39:05 -0000

Davidson garment is a quintessential Harley abercrombie Outlet davidson item, especially if you feature ones Harley decked abercrombie and fitch over. Featuring the whole distinctive line of leather abercrombie sale jackets, t-shirts, buckles, hats, belts, boots abercrombie & fitch and helmets, feeling of guilt reason this is abercrombie not to accessorize to max.A decent buy Harley enthusiast will abercrombie uk go in closet and grab a Harley t-shirt, leather jacket and boots. But, abercrombie london does your closet contain present accessory considering all abercrombie and Fitch Polo of? The Harley helmet. With out them your road abercrombie Polos trip could end in disaster.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

viktor — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:44:25 -0000

you were sayin adding layers is bad. what is 32bit emul if not a compat layer?

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

slAcker — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:42:24 -0000

Seriously,
Why do you need to give so much of a fuck about Linux?
Except if you use it ;)

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

LinnyThePenguin — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:45:04 -0000

Go run a large 16 bit program in Windows XP 32-bit.
You'll see that it not only eats up a LOT of processor, but it slows the entire system down.
Now only that, but having mixed software like that makes Windows extremely unstable.

But you wouldn't know anything about being stable, would you?

On the other hand, we're all allowed our opinions. You've voiced yours.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

eza — Wed, 20 May 2009 07:55:53 -0000

"...doesn't mean society gave you the green light to parade around being loud and obnoxious as fuck, complaining..."

what's your excuse then?

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

asdsadas — Fri, 08 May 2009 06:00:26 -0000

travel
career
baby
love
wedding
movie
anecdote
children
management
automobile
marriage
health
cat
dog
wedding
Philosophy
food
travel
DIY
lose weight
gardening
flower
health
love
wedding

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:57:33 -0000

I came googling for a rant about this and was not disappointed.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

foobar — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:59:04 -0000

linux actually supported x86_64 before the cpus actually existed,.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

TheFuzzball — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 07:31:08 -0000

It's not x64 you thick plankmonster! It's x86_64!

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

makj — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:35:20 -0000

what???? you pretend to have a browser running with less than 16exabytes??? are you crazy???
it wont load even google's page!!!
i'm running with 4Zettabytes and dont think i could end this po

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

makj — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:32:04 -0000

im more or less in your same situation: i've tried different linux distros while at university (redhat, slackware, suse, ...) but always used windows at home, i suppose because of the games (they just worked on windows so...)
after time trying to make my other works in windows and getting in troubles i thought: hey, why not change to linux??? it seems quite a nice thing??? so i did and change everything to linux, but after few months of fighting against drivers and loose my time with that sort of stupid things instead of just really using and enjoying of my music, my photos, etc., i decided to find for a computer that just works!!
so there it was: OSX !!
it works, has a fantastic desktop, over a solid *NIX kernel (demonstrating that is possible make a good desktop for Linux), and every new gadget i add works fine with it...
but anyway i think we should be thankful to that Linux experiment, it has demonstrated that is possible to make a very good OS over a *NIX system basis, and if only ALL of the developers on different distros make a joined effort they could make a very good thing

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

Sneakernets — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:10:19 -0000

Did he say the entire OS?

No, he said the Browser. Nice try though. it makes people on the fence like me realise that you lusers are slowly losing sanity.

There is NO NEED for a browser to need more than a few GB. Unless you have 200 porn movies loaded ( wouldn't surprise me), or loading a website whose webmaster needs a bullet in the head(Momma said not to drink too much AJAX), I think a 32 bit browser is more than enough.

Of course, me being the stupid tech-impaired person, has really no interest in 64 bittiness in the first place. Reminds me of a Nintendo I had in middle school. Then I realise that it's MEMORY that is the main issue here, and let's be honest, 16 exabytes? What the fuck are you running, Mission control? Yeah, it's fun to poke fun at ol Billy and say that 640K as a limit was a bit nearsighted, but maybe he had something a bit different in mind. Limitations seem to have this great ability to make programmers do it RIGHT. Maybe it's the fear of running out of memory.

Even 4 GB I thought was too much. But not in the FOSS world. Some developers there must think a garbage collector is what drives up to pick up their weekly trash of doubleshot cans and pizza boxes.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

Me — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 05:24:52 -0000

Damn, you're right !! I'm still running on an 8-bit CPU because it's enough ! Why upgrade to 32 bit ?!
Maybe you should think twice before writing your articles.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

Michel L. — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:53:27 -0000

There is an additional reason for a 64-bit port: the more architecture a software supports, the more likely it is that the code is free of architecture-specific assumptions. As a case in point, the proportion of OS-specific code in the Linux kernel has dropped significantly since the first port to Alpha back in 1996.

Another company in a similar situation to Adobe w.r.t. Flash is Real. They open-sourced their core media player (as Helix) a few years ago, but it's only very recently that the 64-bit port becomes usable. Perhaps there's something in the open-source model after all -- the main developers might not care about 64-bit support, or support for ARM, PPC, etc. (insert your favourite platform here), but anyone who care enough to do it, and do it properly, will likely see the change merged in, or fork the project.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

TotemDemon — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:41:28 -0000

It's more productive than being a troll at forums, so it's more relevant than you'll ever be.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

Sean — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:35:36 -0000

You forgot to mention that you are an incompetent fool but I suppose admitting to buying a mac mini is the same thing. Talentless people such as yourself really shouldn't pretend to have an opinion, you are a consumer and are without skills, why would your donkey opinion be sought.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

Ryan — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:03:09 -0000

I think 64 bit stuff gives you some advantages in terms of address space layout randomization. I remember reading some paper a while back saying it did almost nothing in 32 bit arches statistically. So when flash gets exploited my systems isn't going to get pwn3d.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

luser — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:09:35 -0000

My guess that it is a known resource leak problem with windows server 2k3 is supported by a guy that came across something similar. I'm talking about a very simple .NET application here, there's a huge difference between scaling problems and design deficiencies. Check the message below.

By the way, I'm not a programmer, in this case your evaluation of the problem as an expert seems to be lacking.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

luser — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:55:36 -0000

You still misunderstand the issue. I said that a *simple* list bound to an SQL server view, which is probably the simplest function of a database front-end, fails occasionally when I *scroll* it. Threading, programmer errors etc. are irrelevant here, there's no reason to use threads, it's just a simple front-end to edit, search and fetch data from a view. The link I gave you doesn't refer to the same problem, it just looks similar using other widgets. I'm talking about simple .NET stuff here, nothing fancy.

Here's a link that looks similar to my problem, mine doesn't include crashes though:
http://www.bokebb.com/dev/e... . He's talking about a known resource leak problem in windows server 2k3, my guess exactly.

You and the other guy above still say nothing about the way such an error is handled by .NET.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

guz — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:30:49 -0000

thanks, I started my Saturday with the image of rebuilding a turd ten times.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

guz — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:27:39 -0000

Don't call it a movement, wanker. It's a pathetic excuse for a hobby at best.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

anonymous coward — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:09:20 -0000

Another quote...

"Proprietary software keeps users divided and helpless."

I thought that was xconf.org.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

anonymous coward — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:55:37 -0000

Yeah, because the alternative to nVidia is ATI and look how fucking amazing the ATI drivers are. Or we can go with Mesa and look at everything through treacle.

Here's a hint: nVidia keep making their drivers because their users want them. Their drivers are the best there are in Linux, for any video card.

I hope you finally get what you want and break nVidia drivers, ndiswrapper, etc... Then perhaps people will wake up and use an OS that works instead of an OS that changes on the whim of a bunch of megalomaniacs.

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

anonymous coward — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:45:28 -0000

The problem is that the userspace APIs, while relatively stable, are useless for doing anything useful. So when we need to do something useful (oh, I don't know, sound, graphics, you know, stuff that goes into your computer or stuff that comes out) we're at the mercy of Linus and friends.

Some would argue that they like it that way, it acts as an incentive to use open code which can be recompiled every time they decide to add a new flag to 50 API calls. Like someone from pulseaudio saying it's fine it deliberately broke Flash, it means that Adobe are suddenly going to call a high-level meeting and afterwards the company will rip up its business plan and announce that it has bowed to his will.

Of course, as a user, I don't want to recompile everything on the whim of a band of keyboard bangers with attention deficit disorder or wait for the changes to trickle down to repositories. I want it to work.

So there you have it. Linux, pissing off both companies and users. Someone remind me who this OS is for again?

Re: My browser needs 16 exabytes

stallmanix — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:39:42 -0000

ok so do you want to know the syscall number for a native function here is an easy trick number = *((WORD*)(getprocaddres("nativefunction")+1))
And please tell me how ndk bypass ntdll? All i see is a bounch of functions and types definition and nothing more.